If I understand you correctly,then are you saying that anyone who protests about this day is by definition supporting harassment of gays et al?Because if that was the case you get onto a very slippery slope.The next step could conceivably be ‘If you don’t actively support this day,then you must be against gays and so you’re discriminating’.If students wish to protest against the day then they should be free to do so without it being assumed that this means they support gay harassment.
I haven’t seen the dress code but if I’m assuming that it bans T-shirts or things which are offensive to a person’s beliefs.In that case surely Harper would be able to complain about any pro-gay T-shirts on the grounds they offend HIS personal beliefs…
It is not the same thing for one person to wear a t-shirt that says: ‘I’m not gay, but my boyfriend is’ and another person wears a ‘Homosexuality Is Shameful’.
The gay person isn’t wearing a shirt that slurs or mocks straight people.
If the student in question was black and they were wearing a black pride shirt and someone wore a shirt that said ‘Return to Africa’, it wouldn’t be allowed and for good reason.
If you deny the parallel, you are being disingenuous at the least.
I don’t suppose it will help to point this out again, but whether or not others dislike the opinion is not the criterion by which we can determine if it should be banned.
Nazis have the right to march in Skokie. Pro-lifers have the right to protest abortion. Goth chicks have the right to protest globalism. And students have the right to express their opinions on homosexuality.
It’s not a free speech issue, it’s a school dress code issue. There’s a difference. The school is perfectly within it’s rights to ban clothing which contains expressions of hate speech. There is no equivalency between expressing pride in a group and expressing hatred for it. Outside the school, sure, wear whatever vile, stupid hate slogans you want, but in school, you may have to follow a dress code, and such a code need not conform to first amendment absolutism.
Well, I don’t know what your idea of absolutism is, but school dress codes do need to conform to the First Amendment just like any other school rules.
They can’t allow clothing with messages that praise Bush while prohibiting messages that criticize Bush. They can’t allow messages that accept homosexuality while prohibiting messages that reject it. And they can’t use overbroad definitions of “hate” to get around those restrictions.
“Forcing homosexuality on them?” What does that mean? Is the school holding dudes down while other dudes suck their dicks?
Schools are allowed to “proselytize”, btw, as long as the message isn’t religious. For instance, schools are allowed to condemn racism, promote cultural diversity and celebrate MLK day without regard to whether they may be offending a few skinheads or 'Christian Identity" folks.
The Day of Silence is not a religious event nor does it endorse any sort of religious view so it’s perfectly legal and acceptable, and there is no requirement to give bigots equal time any more than a school would be obligated to allow students to wear KKK robes during Black History Month.
No they don’t. They can ban t-shirts with obscene messages or profanity, for instance and they can also ban hate speech.
Your examples are not analogous. A message of tolerance or pride is not symetrically anlogous to an expression of hate. A school can allow students to wear Stars of David without being obligated to allow other students to wear swastikas.
If it was race related it wouldn’t be allowed today. Fifty years ago is another question entirely. Times change as do standards of decency. This is not an issue of free speech no matter how much you and your ilk try to make it seem that way.
It means what I explained it to mean in post #116. I won’t repost it;you can scroll up and read it for yourself.
Don’t be silly, of course they can’t.
Unless you are claiming you would have no issue if the school administrators decided to proselytize on behalf of George Bush and prohibited symbolic speech favoring Kerry or Nader.
Well, it is perfectly legal and acceptable providing they don’t use the occasion for any kind of content-based censorship, which is illegal under the Constitution.
Political speech, speech regarding positions on social issues, and other expressions of opinion as well as religious speech are all protected under the First Amendment.
If you are trying to say that expressions of religious opinion are protected at a lower level than other kinds of opinion, you are mistaken. Besides, keep in mind that the separation of church and state applies only to government and its agents - private citizens, such as the student and his t-shirt, are perfectly free to express their opinions. Teachers and other government agents may not endorse one religious point of view over another, but the right of a citizen to do so is exactly what the First Amendment is all about.
So if the private citizens who participated in the National Day of Silence want to express their opinion in favor of one view, the rest of the school is also free to agree or express a different view. If the school abuses its dress code by using it as a mean to censor private opinion expressed non-disruptively, that is a violation of freedom of speech.
You’re wrong that schools aren’t allowed to proselytize. I spent two years working in the public school system. They most definitely can push certain messages and policies, tolerance being one of the chief among them.
And no, students do not have an absolute right to free speech in schools. Hate speech and obscenties can be restricted, as I said before. The t-shirt in the OP is hate speech.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Public schools have the right to curtail all kinds of behaviors in classrooms, and an expression of hate != an expression of religion. It os one thing to wear a cross or some other symbol or statement of faith, it is quite another to express a message which is insulting to other students. Schools are well within their rights to restrict the latter.
And the government can ban threats of violence and prevent people from shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater. The First Amendment is not absolute, but it does apply to school dress codes.
There’s a clear difference between a symbol that has traditionally been associated with violence and oppression, such as a swastika, and a message that criticizes a group or behavior. Banning hate speech is fine as long as that ban isn’t just a shield to prevent all criticism of some group.
How is it that your Godwinism of the swastika invalidates the status of this t-shirt of its status and suddenly is acceptable and is protected ‘speech’? Where is the clear difference?
Why is it that you are invested so deeply in arguing this and do you actually believe that what you are saying is true or are you just playing devil’s advocate?
I don’t think you understand Godwin’s Law. I’m not the one who brought up swastikas.
Where is the clear difference, you ask? Well, one is a symbol that represented a political party in the past that slaughtered 12 million people, and continues to represent hate groups that engage in violence.
The other is a message about someone’s religious beliefs as they apply to certain behavior. There’s no reason to think that the person wearing that message engages in violence or intimidation, or belongs to groups that do, or even sympathizes with groups that do.
(1) Because freedom of speech and youth rights are important to me, and this involves both. Why are you so invested in arguing against it?
(2) Of course I believe it. I have better things to do than sit around defending what I secretly disagree with.
Mr2001: Are you next going to ask me why I hate America?
:rolleyes:
I forgot that you also have argued in favor of telemarketers in the past. That should have reminded me you are impervious to facts, logic, and discussion.
Homosexuality isn’t JUST behavior any more than heterosexuality is. It is a statement like that which really shows you for what you are: uneducated and proud of it. You’ve been on this board for years and read countless threads and yet you made that remark.
There is no difference between an anti-semitic statement and an anti-gay one. Wearing that shirt was exactly the same as wearing a swastika or a Klan hood. Gay students are not some sort of approved target for hate speech. Schools have not only the right but the obligation to provide an atmosphere which is free of that kind of hostilty.